A retrospective critic ReDebate on Stakeholders’ resistance checklist in software project management within multicultural, multiethnical and cosmopolitan society context: The Malaysian experience

Taherdoost et al., Cogent Business & Management (2016), 3: 1151116
/>
OPERATIONS, INFORMATION & TECHNOLOGY | REVIEW ARTICLE

Received: 02 November 2015
Accepted: 25 January 2016
Published: 04 March 2016
*Corresponding author: Hamed
Taherdoost, Research & Development
Department, Ahoora Ltd (Management
Consultation Group), Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
E-mail:
Reviewing editor:
Shaofeng Liu, University of Plymouth,
UK
Additional information is available at
the end of the article

A retrospective critic Re-Debate on Stakeholders’
resistance checklist in software project
management within multi-cultural, multi-ethnical
and cosmopolitan society context: The Malaysian
experience
Hamed Taherdoost1*, Abolfazl Keshavarzsaleh2 and Chen Wang3

Abstract: Risks stemming from software projects were extensively studied. However,
software project risk management has rarely researched organizational risks within
multi-cultural and multi-ethnical atmospheres. The fact of the matter is that
problems occur when the stakeholders’ cultural and ethnical aspects are not addressed, especially in multi-cultural, multi-ethnical, and cosmopolitan society such
as Malaysia. To avoid analyzing something that has already been studied in detail,

this study conducted based on in-depth literature review considering key word
search in subject-specific databases. Journal articles published in reputed journals
were reviewed. By employing Rumelt’s resistance to change checklist and culture
gap tool source, this paper develops an organizational risk framework considering
cross-cultural and cross-ethnical critical factors in order to show how can risks be
ABOUT THE AUTHORS

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

Hamed Taherdoost is a PhD holder of
Management of Information System. His
research interests include Information Security,
Management of Information System, IT User
Acceptance, Project Management, Performance
Management, and Web Services supported by his
vast publications. Currently, he is the chairman of
Ahoora Ltd that is the management consultation
group and the director of Asanware Sdn Bhd
which is the research and development group.
Abolfazl Keshavarzsaleh is a student in business
administration in the faculty of business and law,
International University of Malaya and Wales.
His research interests are project management,
swarm intelligence, entrepreneurship, and IT
project management.
Chen Wang is Associate Professor of
Construction Innovation, Surveying, and
Engineering Management in University of Malaya.
His research interests include mathematics
modeling for civil engineering, swarm intelligence,

ant colony optimization, vertical greenery systems,
sustainability in construction management, and
international BOT projects, supported by his vast
publications.

Stakeholders are of central importance in various
project management spheres, particularly in
volatile and competitive projects such as software
projects. Stakeholders’ resistance to change
management has become very important factors
in project management, particularly within multicultural, multi-ethnical, and cosmopolitan society
atmosphere such as Malaysia. Stakeholders’
checklist is serving dual purposes: it is employed
to manage stakeholders’ resistance to change
and consequently employed to increase odds
of success in project management. Generally
speaking, success here means resolution of
any conflicts generated from leadership and
cultural barriers. Cultural diversity frequently
causes misunderstanding and misinterpretation
in international project execution. Therefore,
comprehending bio-polar culture dimensions,
stakeholders’ resistance indicators, and
appropriate leadership styles lead to success in
terms of on time, on-budget, and preplanned
scope project delivery. This study develops an
organizational risk framework considering crosscultural and cross-ethnical critical factors in order
to show how can risks be better comprehended
and managed.

© 2016 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution
(CC-BY) 4.0 license.

Page 1 of 14


Taherdoost et al., Cogent Business & Management (2016), 3: 1151116
/>
better comprehended and managed. The significance of bio-cultural dimensions
was scrutinized as vital criteria which should be considered in international project
sphere, so that, not only the odds of project success would be increased but also
the risks can be mitigated significantly. A review of the risk management process,
Rumelt’s Checklist, cultural issues in international project environment allows a better understanding of the importance of cultural dimensions in project spheres.
Subject: Management of IT
Keywords: classification frameworks; cross-cultural management; process model; software project management; bio-polar cultural dimensions

Downloaded by [203.128.244.130] at 23:17 14 March 2016

1. Introduction
Since globalization has provoked serious debates about international project spheres within global
village, strategic alliances beyond the world borders led to the attention to national culture per se
(Barlett & Ghoshal, 1998). Therefore, lots of researchers in project management spheres highlighted
the fact that adopting project management approach requires not only the usage of the project
management tools and techniques but also cultural values for project success (Andersen, 2003;
Kendra & TapUn, 2004; Vaupel & Schmoike, 2000).

1.1. Unique projects and unique challenges; insight from software project management
Projects, particularly, Information Technology projects regularly fail due to their dynamic, complex,
and volatile nature of the projects. As it is published by Standish group over 50,000 IT projects between 1992 and 2004, only 29 percent could be categorized as successful projects in all (Johnson,
2006).The root cause of failures in overwhelming majority of projects are tied with failure; to meet

preplanned schedule within approved scope; to meet cost performance targets of the project; to
provide well-coordinated and well-sequenced expected project scope (Taherdoost & Keshavarzsaleh,
2015b). To illustrate, these three dismal failures are interrelated to correspondence, procedural, interaction, and expectation failures (Lyytinen & Hirschheim, 1987). From macro IT projects to micro
software projects vantage point, software projects are perceived as high-risk projects instinctively
due to their competitive market and dynamic natures (Taherdoost & Keshavarzsaleh, 2015a). The
software projects are intended to be high-risk activities because of two main reasons; the rapid pace
of technological changes and the organizational changes (Aloini, Dulmin, & Mininno, 2012; Altuwaijri
& Khorsheed, 2011; Bannerman, 2008; Cule, Schmidt, Lyytinen, & Keil, 2000; Hong & Kim, 2002;
Kwahk & Kim, 2007; Li, Yang, & Chen, 2011), thereby, paying attention to risk management is essential for project success (Baccarini, Salm, & Love, 2004; Low & Leong, 2000; Pan & Zbang, 2004; Tiwana
& Keil, 2004; Wallace & Keil, 2004; Wang & Liu, 2007). Recently, much has become interested in
software projects and why software projects are at failing risk (de Bakker, Boonstra, & Wortmann,
2010). Accordingly, two main efforts have been conducted so far; (1) several risk factors have been
identified (Bannerman, 2008); (2) process models based on widespread theories and practices are
classified (Aloini et al., 2012; Bannerman, 2008). However, software project risk management seems
to be on the infant stage and are still not managed effectively (Aloini, Dulmin, & Mininno, 2007; de
Bakker et al., 2010; Bannerman, 2008; Geraldi, Kutsch, & Turner, 2011; Kappelman, McKeeman, &
Zhang, 2006; Kutsch & Hall, 2005; Osipova & Eriksson, 2013). Because the successful application of
resistance checklist requires a holistic and integrative perspective, in this paper, we adopted Rumelt’s
checklist which has also been empirically tested (Pardo del Val & Martínez Fuentes, 2003; Rumelt,
1995). In this paper, we argue that the various components of Rumelt’s checklist would significantly
influence the general interactions between stakeholders and project managers. The objective of this
article is to draw on a wide range of project management literature to develop a framework that
guides potential stakeholders and software project managers through application of Rumelt’s
checklist, considering cross-cultural and multi-ethnical factors within culturally diverse societies
such as Malaysia. In order to increase the odds of success, we highlighted the significance of Culture
gap tool Source as a guideline in which all bio-polar cultural dimensions (Elena, 2010) were clarified.
Page 2 of 14


Taherdoost et al., Cogent Business & Management (2016), 3: 1151116

/>
To that end, we seek to integrate what the literature suggests we know about the significance of
crossvergence and hybridization concept on multi-cultural management (Elena, 2010). The advantages of this approach are that we are able to walk through the Rumelt’s checklist as well as biopolar cultural dimensions guideline and use existing research to outline the stakeholders’ resistance
sources associated with software project management, to identify the significant roles of crosscultural and ethnical indicators in stakeholders’ resistance management within Malaysia’s context,
to develop success-focused practical recommendations and implications of resistance checklist in
software project management, and to discuss the benefits of engaging resistance checklists considering bio-polar cultural dimensions. Central to re-debate on this matter is a question of how cultural
and ethnical diversity in Malaysia affect Rumelt’s checklist, from stakeholders’ resistance checklist
vantage point within software project management sphere? The results deuced from answering this
question are pertinent to software project managers for the purpose of improving and strengthening
their practices and decisions in this area.

Downloaded by [203.128.244.130] at 23:17 14 March 2016

1.2. A pilot investigation and case selection
Malaysia is a country in Southeast Asia, approximately 30 million inhabitants live in Malaysia, including Malays, Indians, and a number of indigenous tribes. In addition, more than approximately
700000 people from foreign countries work in the country. These cultural diversity lead to various
cross-cultural and multi-ethnical interactions. Moreover, these interactions from project management vantage point lead to creation of new concepts of managing projects considering multi-cultural and multi-ethnical indicators among all teams, and stakeholders. Recently, Malaysian discovered
project management as an important success factor. In the past, mostly foreign professionals undertook the responsibility for project management and provided services as general contractors for
the coordination of project task. In 2013, the Malaysian Association of Project Management (MAPM)
was founded to support the development of necessary competence and operational excellence.
Accordingly, MAPM joined IPMA (International Project Management Association) to get support, network with other associations in the region and create a project management mechanism that fits
the country-specific situation; moreover, this merged cooperation conducted activities toward considering culture and ethnic as two main indicators among all participants, especially stakeholder
(Wagner, 2013). However, there is a lack of research in the case of how equipping project managers
with a tacit knowledge of cultural and ethnical matters can prevent any challenges among stakeholders as well as increasing the projects’ performance targets. Various case studies have been
conducted in Malaysia considering cultural and ethnical diversity within different industries but none
of them put spotlight on the significance of bio-polar cultural and ethnical indicators within volatile
projects such as software projects considering the Rumelt’s checklist influence on stakeholders and
project mangers interactions. For example, the case of multi-national corporations in Malaysia indicates that a direct influence of expatriates’ cultural intelligence have positive effects on both expatriates’ task and contextual performance (Malek & Budhwar, 2013). Moreover, a case study in safety
project within Malaysia’s context uncovers the fact that the establishment of cooperative safety
management in Malaysia is intriguing and noteworthy due to its uniqueness in term of its multiethnic culture and thought, political status quo, administration constraints and readiness of industry

to partake (Ramli, Mokhtar, & Aziz, 2014). Furthermore, within construction sector, risk identification
considering stakeholders and project managers interactions are revealed as key factors of construction project success in Malaysia (Abdullah & Rahman, 2012). Within software development industries in Malaysia, among the key problems of information systems, requirements process
(Requirement is an important factor for the development of any project which relies on communication and mutual cultural awareness of counterparties and it defines what different stakeholders
need and how system will fulfill these needs) is the gap between analysts and stakeholders (Rahman,
Haron, Sahibuddin, & Harun, 2014). The stakeholder management approach assists to integrate
managerial concerns, such as strategic management, marketing and human resource management, and organizational management as well as social responsibility. Thus, this enables project
managers to identify important issues, raised from miss-communication, and lack of mutual cultural
and ethical awareness (Henrie & Sousa-Poza, 2005; Kendra & TapUn, 2004; Shore & Cross, 2005;
Vaupel & Schmoike, 2000); to develop proactive strategies (Andersen, 2003; Chen & Partington,
Page 3 of 14


Downloaded by [203.128.244.130] at 23:17 14 March 2016

Taherdoost et al., Cogent Business & Management (2016), 3: 1151116
/>
2004; Downes, Hemmasi, Graf, Kelley, & Huff, 2002; Firth & Krut, 1991; Müller & Turner, 2004), to
handle potential conflicts (Chen & Partington, 2004; Foster, 1992; Gobeli, Koenig, & Bechinger, 1998;
Pinto & Slevin, 1988; Schneider & De Meyer, 1991) effectively and efficiently, through engaging a
comprehensive stakeholders’ resistance checklist considering cultural and ethnical indicators. In
stakeholder management, essential features such as understanding cross-cultural management,
relationship, communications, leadership, commitment, interests and influences, incentives and
motivations, and alignment of values should be considered and related issues should be addressed
earlier by the firm or organization for better cooperation among stakeholders and project managers,
so that, mutual understanding toward project success would be established (Karim, Rahman, Berawi,
& Jaapar, 2007). Therefore, there is required for us to have further study on the important role of
stakeholders toward the project management since there still not have the sufficient information to
prove that considering their culture and ethnic can be beneficial. The Software projects were extensively studied. However, software project risk management has rarely researched organizational
risks within multi-cultural and multi-ethnical atmospheres, in spite of the fact that problems occur
when the cultural and ethnical aspects are not addressed, especially in multi-cultural, multi-ethnical, and cosmopolitan society such as Malaysia.

2. Research methodology
The study conducted based on in-depth literature review considering key word search in subjectspecific databases. There is empirical evidence that key word search in subject-specific databases is
known as a prevalently used and widely accepted methodology when it comes to review articles
(Xue, Shen, & Ren, 2010; Yi & Chan, 2013). Within academic context, articles decisively selected
based on their cultural and ethnical contents from both PMI’s project management journal and
IPMA’s international journal of project management. The article search was performed by searching
the title, abstract, and keywords in the EBSCO and Science Direct databases. Based on the study
objectives, retrieved articles were tabulated in Table 1.
It is intended that this conceptual research paper help researchers and projects stakeholders in
international business environment better re-formulate resistance checklists in multi-cultural project execution. Figure 1 depicts relation among choices of topic, methods, theoretical, and practical
considerations.
This method assists us to answer the main research question of this paper “how cultural and ethnical diversity in Malaysia affect Rumelt’s checklist, considering stakeholders’ resistance sources?”
Our aim was to summarize the existing research on the definition of project success and failure from
the supplier’s perspective, and establish in which journals the articles selected for this study were
published.
Table 1. Studies which are of central importance in cultural issues in project management
Cultural and ethnical symptoms

Studies

Project failure

(Dinsmore, 1984; Jaeger & Kanungo, 1990; Muriithi &
Crawford, 2003; Verma, 1995)

Conflict resolution

(Chen & Partington, 2004; Foster, 1992; Gobeli et al.,
1998; Pinto & Slevin, 1988; Schneider & De Meyer, 1991)

Risk management

(Low & Leong, 2000; Pan & Zbang, 2004; Wang & Liu,
2007)

Leadership and empowerment

(Andersen, 2003; Chen & Partington, 2004; Downes et al.,
2002; Firth & Krut, 1991; Müller & Turner, 2004)

Business relationships

(Low & Leong, 2000; Pan & Zbang, 2004; Wang & Liu,
2007)

Teamwork

(Chen & Partington, 2004; Low & Leong, 2000; Mead,
1998; Wang & Liu, 2007)

Cultural awareness

(Henrie & Sousa-Poza, 2005; Kendra & TapUn, 2004;
Shore & Cross, 2005; Vaupel & Schmoike, 2000)
Page 4 of 14


Taherdoost et al., Cogent Business & Management (2016), 3: 1151116
/>

Figure 1. Research Design &
Plan (Kothari, 2004).

Selection of topic

Theoretical
preferences

Practical
consideration

Downloaded by [203.128.244.130] at 23:17 14 March 2016

Research
method

3. Typical cause of project failures; retrospective exhibit
There is empirical evidence that causes of project failures are associated with the dynamic nature of
the project (Dinsmore, 1984; Jaeger & Kanungo, 1990; Meredith & Mantel, 2002; Muriithi & Crawford,
2003). There are two types of projects such as (1) well understood, routine projects so-called noncomplex and (2) complex projects include not only unknown but also unclear scopes (Meredith &
Mantel, 2002). The terms “perceived failure” stand for the result of the combination of both actual
failure and planning failure (Kerzner, 2009). The actual failure occurs under some circumstances
such as there is contradiction between what was preplanned and what was accomplished, whereas
planning failure occurs under some circumstances such as there is contradiction between preplanned schedule and achievable (Kerzner, 2009). Humans are considered as to be at the core of the
project and are perceived as heartbeat of it. Generally speaking, teamwork (Chen & Partington, 2004;
Low & Leong, 2000; Mead, 1998) is of central importance in any projects. The failure factors based
on Kerzner’s acknowledgment are as citing poor motivation, productivity, and human relations; lack
of employee and functional commitment; delayed problem-solving; and unresolved policy and
stakeholder issues (Kerzner, 2009). On the other hand, the IT project failure attributes are categorized as unrealistic project scope, project development experience, improper management of scope
creep, lack of keeping pace with emerging technologies, problem in investigation of organization

issues (Murray, 2000). There has been developed a unique perception of project failures in which
related to canceled projects due to managers perceptions that the project does not have potential
to be successful. These related factors are known as abandonment factors (Ewusi-Mensah, 2003). A
literature-based guideline of abandonment factors and other associated ones are clarified as (1)
personnel shortfall and straining, computer science technical know-how, unrealistic scheduling and
budgeting concept, development of wrong functionalities, properties, and/or user interfaces, requirements volatility and constantly changes, and shortfall in procurement of components and staff
(Boehm, 1991); (2) Scheduling and timing, System functionality, Subcontracting, Requirements management, Resource usage and Performance, and Personnel management (Ropponen & Lyytinen,
2000); (3) abandonment factors: Unrealistic project goals and objectives, Poor project team composition, Project management and control problems, Inadequate technical expertise, Problematic
technology base/infrastructure, Lack of executive or support/commitment, Changing requirements,
and Cost overruns and schedule delays (Ewusi-Mensah, 2003). Therefore, all aforementioned failure
sources indicates the fact that why projects cannot be managed successfully, and why still project
managers face challenges within project context, especially when it comes to volatile, dynamic projects such as software project management.

4. Evolution and domains of software project risk management; what we know
Risk can be defined as effect of ambiguity and uncertainty on presupposed objectives (ISO, 2009).
The Risk, itself can have either positive (unimpeded) or negative (impeded) effects on a project
Page 5 of 14


Taherdoost et al., Cogent Business & Management (2016), 3: 1151116
/>
Downloaded by [203.128.244.130] at 23:17 14 March 2016

(Hartono, Sulistyo, Praftiwi, & Hasmoro, 2014). There have been conducted lots of researches regarding identifying risk factors also known as source of risks, critical success/failure factors, ambiguity
factors, risk drivers based on literature (Aloini et al., 2007; Bannerman, 2008; Benaroch, Lichtenstein,
& Robinson, 2006; Tiwana & Keil, 2004). Risks can be perceived based on the project natures, for
example, in construction projects, risk factors do not affect project in a direct way (Tah & Carr, 2001),
on the contrary, in software projects, risks affect project directly (Aloini et al., 2007; ISO, 2009). There
are three main mechanisms in software project risk management in which provoked ongoing debate
about stakeholders’ resistance checklist in this paper. The main approaches to software risk management are checklists, classification frameworks, and process model (de Bakker et al., 2010;

Bannerman, 2008).
Checklists; refers to a tool in which risk factors have been identified in pat projects (de Bakker et al.,
2010), are check and list isomorphically. Various checklists have been applied so far and can be
found in the literature (Aloini et al., 2007; Schmidt, Lyytinen, Keil, & Cule, 2001). The checklists encompass a combination of technical and organizational risks structured by typical risk probability in
software projects (Aloini et al., 2007) as well as often comprise too many potential risk factors in
which should be considered proactively and reactively.
Classification frameworks; As all listed risks in checklists have instinctively potential to be an active,
the risk factors may be grouped and managed concurrently. The term classification frameworks
extracted from construction management context in which the risks can be classified according to
different criteria such as their perceived source (Baccarini et al., 2004; Bannerman, 2008; Cule et al.,
2000; Keil, Cule, Lyytinen, & Schmidt, 1998; Liu & Wang, 2014; Wallace & Keil, 2004).
Process models; the third risk management approach is process models in which specify risk management activities pertinent to a genera risk management process such as to establish the context,
to identify risks, to evaluate risks, to mitigate risks, to communicate, to consulate, to monitor, and to
review in all (Aloini et al., 2012; Baccarini et al., 2004; Bandyopadhyay, Mykytyn, & Mykytyn, 1999;
Bannerman, 2008; ISO, 2009; Kwan & Leung, 2011).
It is common to use an integrated approach including all above mechanism in risk identification
(Bannerman, 2008; de Bakker et al., 2010). However, this integrated approach can cover projects’
specific risks rather than cover generic risk factors (de Bakker et al., 2010). In this paper, we put
spotlight on resistance checklist in-depth. The resistance is perceived as a complex phenomenon
which can have variety of causes such as innate conservatism, lack of felt need, and uncertainty
(Hirschheim & Newman, 1998). The software project is evaluated by user based on the individual,
peer group, and organizational level (Joshi, 1991). Therefore, resistance occurs due to inequity in
each level. There are four antecedent circumstances to resistance; enforced proceduralization, organizational and personnel issues, discipline and non-engagement with the system, which may result in various kinds of workarounds (Ferneley & Sobreperez, 2006). Other resistance might be
considered as switching costs (Kim & Kankanhalli, 2009), conflict raised from vying for power
(Markus, 1983), and combination of the individual behaviors (Lapointe & Rivard, 2005). Source of
resistance are depicted in Figure 2 (adapted from (Vrhovec, Hovelja, Vavpotič, & Krisper, 2015).
All aforementioned resistance sources, generated from interactions between stakeholders and
their projects are illustrated as;
(1) Lack of top management commitments; management should create and clearly pursue a vision and provision of supporting and incentivizing the alteration. If stakeholders do not comprehend significantly the fact that management is as following the formal vision pertinent to
the new software, they are improbably to be its enthusiastic advocates (Aloini et al., 2012;

Baccarini et al., 2004; Hirschheim & Newman, 1998; Lundy & Morin, 2013; Pardo del Val &
Martínez Fuentes, 2003; Rumelt, 1995).
(2) Past outcomes (lesson learned); lessons learned from past software projects influence the perceptions and expectations about prospective ones which much more drive project mangers’

Page 6 of 14


Taherdoost et al., Cogent Business & Management (2016), 3: 1151116
/>
Figure 2. Resistance checklists;
sources perspectives (Vrhovec
et al., 2015).

Lack of top management commitment
Past records (outcomes)
Perceived threats (prospective)
Organizational politics

Downloaded by [203.128.244.130] at 23:17 14 March 2016

Direct cost (either incurred or not)
Capabilities gaps and bugs
Myopia known as nearsightedness
Sources of Resistance

Collective action issues
Conservatism
Reactive mindset
Incommensurable beliefs
Groupthink

Speed, complexity and volatile
Lack of perceived value

affective and behavioral reactions to it. Also may significantly affect users’ perceptions toward
a new software retrospectively (Martinko, Henry, & Zmud, 1996; Pardo del Val & Martínez
Fuentes, 2003; Rumelt, 1995).
(3) Perceived threats; the perceived threats are generated from a change and uncertainties. For
example, the stakeholders resistance generates from uncertainty, losing their jobs, being
transferred away from their friends, losing status, or sacrificing past investments (Hirschheim
& Newman, 1998; Jiang, Muhanna, & Klein, 2000; Kim & Kankanhalli, 2009; Lapointe & Rivard,
2005; Lawrence, 1954; Long & Spurlock, 2008; Lundy & Morin, 2013; Marakas & Hornik, 1996;
Pardo del Val & Martínez Fuentes, 2003; Rumelt, 1995; Vrhovec & Rupnik, 2011).
(4) Organizational politics; the organizational politics are perceived as the most source of resistance. For example, the software project often cause a re-distribution of resources effectively
which could contribute to challenges in terms of power of interests in the organization

Page 7 of 14


Taherdoost et al., Cogent Business & Management (2016), 3: 1151116
/>
(Altuwaijri & Khorsheed, 2011; Baccarini et al., 2004; Ferneley & Sobreperez, 2006; Hirschheim
& Newman, 1998; Jiang et al., 2000; Lapointe & Rivard, 2005; Markus, 1983; Pardo del Val &
Martínez Fuentes, 2003; Rumelt, 1995).
(5) Direct costs; software projects usually struggle with some issues such as a temporal disruption
of day-to-day work, temporally increased risk of organizational failure and excess effort in
which deal with cost matters easily (Long & Spurlock, 2008; Lundy & Morin, 2013; Pardo del Val
& Martínez Fuentes, 2003; Rumelt, 1995).
(6) Capabilities gaps and bugs; these gaps and bugs raised from any mismatches between the
tasks need to be performed and competencies and capabilities of users (Fiedler, 2010; Long &
Spurlock, 2008; Lundy & Morin, 2013; Ocepek, Bosnić, Šerbec, & Rugelj, 2013; Pardo del Val &

Martínez Fuentes, 2003; Rumelt, 1995).

Downloaded by [203.128.244.130] at 23:17 14 March 2016

(7) Collective actions problem; this issue generated from users refusal to fully use the new software because they afraid of dissatisfaction, generating from the difficulty of deciding (Ferneley
& Sobreperez, 2006; Pardo del Val & Martínez Fuentes, 2003; Rumelt, 1995).
(8) Myopia known as nearsightedness; the expected dominance of short-term goals over longterm goals lead to inability of the management to be proactive and prospective rather than to
be reactive (Pardo del Val & Martínez Fuentes, 2003; Rumelt, 1995).
(9) Conservatism; this issue is made manifest when the new software projects face changes in
working processes and structures as users want to stay with the way which they are accustomed to (Ferneley & Sobreperez, 2006; Hirschheim & Newman, 1998; Hong & Kim, 2002;
Lundy & Morin, 2013; Pardo del Val & Martínez Fuentes, 2003; Rumelt, 1995).
(10) Reactive mindset; if the obstacles are inevitable, then the stakeholders may resist (Long &
Spurlock, 2008; Pardo del Val & Martínez Fuentes, 2003; Rumelt, 1995).
(11) Incommensurable beliefs; these issues are considered as resistance when there are problems
about nature of the issues and their alternative solutions (Atkinson, Crawford, & Ward, 2006;
Hartono et al., 2014; Pardo del Val & Martínez Fuentes, 2003; Rumelt, 1995).
(12) Groupthink; despite its advantages, this leads to peer pressure, restricted thinking, rejecting or
even punishing ideas and information that deviate too much from those generally accepted
in the group (Eckhardt, Laumer, & Weitzel, 2009; Ferneley & Sobreperez, 2006; Pardo del Val &
Martínez Fuentes, 2003; Rumelt, 1995).
(13) Speed and complexity; fast and complex changes lead to a situation in which the enterprises
cannot analyze the circumstances properly (Pardo del Val & Martínez Fuentes, 2003; Rumelt,
1995).
(14) Lack of perceived value; if the benefits of new software are relatively low compared to the old
one, then stakeholders may resist due to dulled motivation for change (Fiedler, 2010; Joshi,
1991; Kim & Kankanhalli, 2009; Long & Spurlock, 2008; Lundy & Morin, 2013; Pardo del Val &
Martínez Fuentes, 2003; Rumelt, 1995).

5. New alternatives for new resistance checklists; critic re-debate
In this paper, the Rumelt’s checklist which has been empirically tested (Pardo del Val & Martínez

Fuentes, 2003; Rumelt, 1995), discussed above in details. We tend to think that in this global village,
international project management in terms of multi-cultural and multi-ethnical matter should be
considered significantly as additional checklist resistance sources. In tough economic times and
under global competition, management by projects is now regarded as a competitive way for managing projects, especially software projects, more particularly among stakeholders from different
cultures and ethnics. Malaysia is perceived as a shining example, a cosmopolitan community with
divergence in culture and ethnic. This paper seeks to outline the importance of considering culture
and ethnic diversity as additional matters when it comes to outline resistance checklists from stakeholders’ perspectives. In order to improve the odds of success, global project managers should use
originality to deviate from general norms and obtain advantages. This research indicates that crossvergence which is about merging together management practices of two or more cultures, so that a
Page 8 of 14


Taherdoost et al., Cogent Business & Management (2016), 3: 1151116
/>
Downloaded by [203.128.244.130] at 23:17 14 March 2016

Table 2 Countries and project communication preferences source: Ralf Mueller and Rodney
Turner, “cultural differences in project owner-project manager communications” (Mueller &
Turner, 2004)
Country group

Preferences

Japan, Taiwan and Brazil, Japan, Taiwan and Brazil

Face-to-face, analytical at milestones

Hungary and India

Written status reports, fixed intervals

Netherlands and Germany

Detailed progress reports, fixed intervals

Australia, United States, Canada, New Zealand, United
Kingdom, and Sweden

Continuous phone updates with written backup

practice relevant to a heterogeneous culture can be assembled (Elena, 2010). Global teams can
provide all components for an effective merged of different project management practices as people
from various country and company cultures, enriched by different experiences and management
theories, implemented by a team in different countries, with a wealthy mix of skills and beliefs
(Binder, 2007). Another fact were indicated in this research is hybridization concept on multi-cultural
management, which can be defined as use of a common body of knowledge, intensified with selective parts of successful practices from ethnic to ethnic and culture to culture (Elena, 2010). Fisher
and Fisher suggest there are four steps framework for effective cross-cultural project management;
Learn the definition and different types of culture, Understanding the cultural differences, Respect
the cultural differences, Enjoy the richness of a multi-cultural team (Fisher & Fisher, 2001). Countries
and project communication preferences are tabulated in Table 2.
The fact of the matter is that our study and observation in Malaysia indicates that preferences in
Malaysia encompass face-to-face and written status confirmation reports in further stage, and ultimately in order to conclude continues updates and backup either offline or online seems to be a
good communication ways among different cultures and ethnics in Malaysia. In order to debate on
significance of considering multi-culturalism and multi-ethnicalism in Malaysia, we investigate all
indicators related to cultural gaps in software project management among Malaysian stakeholders
including; Malay, Chinese, and Indian. The Table 3 indicates in which aspects in international project
management the cultural differences manifest themselves widely.

Table 3 Culture gap tool source (Koster, 2010)
Bio-polar cultural dimensions
Equality

Managing risk and uncertainty, defining & planning the project,
organizing the project leading and managing the team, communicating, co-operating

Hierarchy

Embracing risks

Defining the project managing risk and uncertainty, planning the
project, organizing the project, implementing & controlling

Avoiding risks

Individual

Managing risk, organizing projects, implementing & controlling,
motivating and leading the team learning

Group

Universal

Matching strategy with projects, defining the project, planning the
project, implementing & controlling, learning

Circumstantial

Task

Managing stakeholders, planning the project, implementing &

controlling, leading and managing the team learning

Relationship

Achievements

Planning the project, organizing the project, implementing & controlling, motivating and leading the team

Standstill status

Conflict

Defining the scope, leading and managing the team, communicating, co-operating

Consensus

Theoretical

Planning the project, executing & controlling the project learning

Pragmatic

Sequential

Defining the project, planning the project, implementing & controlling

Synchronic

Page 9 of 14

Taherdoost et al., Cogent Business & Management (2016), 3: 1151116
/>
Considering tabulated factors in Table 2 provides the management team of the multi-cultural and
multi-ethnical project with valuable input for stakeholder management process as it is considered
significantly in resistance checklists as additional alternatives in Malaysian software project management scope.

6. Findings and discussion

Downloaded by [203.128.244.130] at 23:17 14 March 2016

This study conducted a critical review of the literature on software project management considering
cultural and ethnical indicators in Malaysia. This study focuses on the Rumelt’s checklist considering
stakeholders and project managers’ interaction in multi-cultural and multi-ethnical atmospheres.
Understanding the cultural significance among cosmopolitan societies became vital in project management. This study scrutinized cultural issues, bio-cultural dimensions, root cause of project failures, and project management styles in Malaysia. To our best knowledge, it is the first study on
national and international differences in software project management considering bio-polar cultural dimensions due to the uniqueness of Malaysia itself as both multi-ethnical and multi-cultural
country.
Within projects including increased interaction between stakeholders of different cultures and
ethnics, the comprehensive source of resistance checklists encompasses multi-cultural and multiethical factors in addition to Rumelt’s checklist can be prospectively beneficial. A project manger
needs to understand his/her own culture and the stakeholders’ cultures as well. Being part of a
multi-cultural team or dealing with multi-cultural stakeholders has a lot of advantages in developing competitive markets such as Malaysia. The Rumelt’s checklists along with culture gap indicators
open a new horizon in project mangers’ career in order to how to manage stakeholders as the project manager, the customer and the project team in all. The purpose of the re-debated resistance
checklist is to pave the way toward successful software project management in Malaysia. Additional
research on improving this concept would be valuable. In our research, only resistance checklists
considered. Research considering case study would also be beneficial. In conclusion, we feel that
there is a strong case to made for the benefits of stakeholders’ resistance checklist for variety of
potential stakeholders. As discussed, a number of benefits are available to those who choose to be
directly involved in the outline process. Moreover, there are likely untold benefits to the communities, regions, and nations in which these conceptual endeavors take place.
Challenges exist, however, and the outline process of stakeholders’ checklist’s identification is not
as efficient or as effective as it could be. It is hoped that this article provides a better understanding

of the stakeholders’ resistance checklist, its difficulties, recommendations for overcoming these, and
the potential benefits that may be gained as academics and practitioners strive to develop improved
outline of stakeholders’ checklist within software project management context.

7. Implications and contributions
Increasing globalization was attracted interest of academics and practitioners to the study of cultural diversities into the management area. Likewise, the analogous trend toward running some
business through projects has brought wider perspectives such as cross-cultural and cross-ethnical
stakeholders’ management perception into the project management field. Recent academic literature demonstrated that culture has a major impact on management practices, especially international and national project execution. No extensive implications and guidelines were found on the
comparison of the project planning among countries, which could help to establish relationship between multi-cultural and multi-ethnical stakeholders and project planning capabilities in terms of
resistance to change management.
• A competent project manager must have broad understanding of the culture of people he or she
is leading as a team work or dealing as stakeholder before he or she undertakes a leadership
style in projects.

Page 10 of 14


Taherdoost et al., Cogent Business & Management (2016), 3: 1151116
/>
• The problem of both attitudes along with prejudice must be addressed exhaustively before a
project manager is allocated to be a project leader.
• There must be a guideline for every project manager on what to do and what not to do, moreover, the do’s and don’ts in managing should be clarified. This will help effective communication
among team members and project stakeholders (Sriussadaporn, 2006).
• Despite all technical know-how, the project manager must develop unique inter-personal skill in
cross-cultural communication, must be fluent in speech with sound mind as well (Knotts &
Thibodeaux, 1992).
• The project manager must develop a dynamic means of resolving conflicts, generated from lack
of knowledge of stakeholders’ cultures.

Downloaded by [203.128.244.130] at 23:17 14 March 2016

• The project manager should be capable of playing a role as a teacher and lead as an example
(Catanio, Armstrong, & Tucker, 2013).
• The project manger should have orientation including the cultural ethics and morals, considering crossvergence and hybridization on multi-cultural management when it comes to bio-polar
culture dimensions, so that the stakeholders resistance can be managed properly.
To conclude, factors are crucial in cross-cultural communication with either team members or
stakeholders in project management are; discussion on stereotyping, ethnocentricity, tolerance, respect, barriers to intercultural communication, negotiation skills, and conflict resolution in all (Singh,
2010). Before running any effective projects, all aforementioned factors should be considered in
details in order to increase odds of success. Success in this case is perceived as managing stakeholders among multi-cultural, multi-ethnical, and cosmopolitan society such as Malaysia.
Acknowledgement
This research has been prepared and supported by
Research & Development Department of Ahoora Ltd |
Management Consultation Group.
Author details
Hamed Taherdoost1
E-mail:
ORCID ID: />Abolfazl Keshavarzsaleh2
E-mail:
Chen Wang3
E-mail:
1
Research & Development Department, Ahoora Ltd
(Management Consultation Group), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
2
Faculty of Business and Law, International University of
Malaya and Wales, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
3
Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya, Kuala
Lumpur, Malaysia.
Citation information

Cite this article as: A retrospective critic Re-Debate on
Stakeholders’ resistance checklist in software project
management within multi-cultural, multi-ethnical and
cosmopolitan society context: The Malaysian experience,
Hamed Taherdoost, Abolfazl Keshavarzsaleh & Chen Wang,
Cogent Business & Management (2016), 3: 1151116.
References
Abdullah, A. A., Rahman, H. A., & Mininno, V. (2012).
Identification of relevant risks in abandoned housing
projects in Malaysia: A qualitative study. Procedia—Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 62, 1281–1285.
Aloini, D., Dulmin, R., & Mininno, V. (2007). Risk management
in ERP project introduction: Review of the literature.
Information & Management, 44, 547–567.
/>
Aloini, D., Dulmin, R., & Mininno, V. (2012). Risk assessment in
ERP projects. Information Systems, 37, 183–199.
/>Altuwaijri, M. M., & Khorsheed, M. S. (2011). A project-based
model for successful IT innovation diffusion. International
Journal of Project Management, 30, 37–47.
Andersen, E. S. (2003). Understanding your project organization’s
character. Project Management Journal, 34, 4–11.
Atkinson, R., Crawford, L., & Ward, S. (2006). Fundamental
uncertainties in projects and the scope of project
management. International Journal of Project Management,
24, 687–698. />Baccarini, D., Salm, G., & Love, P. E. D. (2004). Management
of risks in information technology projects. Industrial
Management & Data Systems, 104, 286–295.
/>Bandyopadhyay, K., Mykytyn, P. P., Mykytyn, K. (1999). A
framework for integrated risk management in information

technology. Management Decision, 37, 437–444.
Bannerman, P. L. (2008). Risk and risk management in
software projects: A reassessment. Journal of Systems
and Software, 81, 2118–2133.
/>Barlett, C., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Managing across borders: The
transnational solution. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Benaroch, M., Lichtenstein, Y., & Robinson, K. (2006). Real
options in information technology risk management:
An empirical validation of risk option relationships.
Management Information System Quarterly, 30, 827–864.
Binder, J. C. (2007). Global project management:
Communication, collaboration and management across
borders. England, Hampshire: Gower Publishing.
Boehm, B. W. (1991). Software risk management: Principles
and practices. IEEE Software, 8, 32–41.
/>Catanio, J. T., Armstrong, G., & Tucker, J. (2013). The effects of
project management certification on the triple constraint.

Page 11 of 14


Downloaded by [203.128.244.130] at 23:17 14 March 2016

Taherdoost et al., Cogent Business & Management (2016), 3: 1151116
/>
International Journal of Information Technology Project
Management, 4, 93–111.
/>Chen, P., & Partington, D. (2004). An interpretive comparison
of Chinese and Western conceptions of relationships in

construction project management work. International
Journal of Project Management, 22, 397–406.
/>Cule, P., Schmidt, R., Lyytinen, K., & Keil, M. (2000). Strategies
for heading off is project failure. Information Systems
Management, 17, 61–69.
/>1229.8
de Bakker, K., Boonstra, A., & Wortmann, H. (2010). Does risk
management contribute to IT project success? A metaanalysis of empirical evidence. International Journal of
Project Management, 28, 493–503.
/>Dinsmore, P. C. (1984). Human factors in project management.
New York, NY: Amacon.
Downes, M., Hemmasi, M., Graf, A., Kelley, L., & Huff, L. (2002).
The propensity to trust: A comparative study of United
States and Japanese managers. International Journal of
Management, 19, 614–621.
Eckhardt, A., Laumer, S., & Weitzel, T. (2009). Who influences
whom? Analyzing workplace referents’ social influence
on IT adoption and non-adoption. Journal of Information
Technology, 24, 11–24.
/>Elena, R. D. (2010). Cultural differences in project
management. Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series
Oeconomica, 12.
Ewusi-Mensah, K. (2003). Software development failures
anatomy of abandoned projects.
Ferneley, E. H., & Sobreperez, P. (2006). Resist, comply or
workaround? An examination of different facets of user
engagement with information systems. European Journal
of Information Systems, 15, 345–356.
/>Fiedler, S. (2010). Managing resistance in an organizational
transformation: A case study from a mobile operator

company. International Journal of Project Management,
28, 370–383.
/>Firth, G., & Krut, R. (1991). Introducing a project management
culture. European Management Journal, 9, 437–443.
/>Fisher, K., & Fisher, M. D. (2001). The distance manger: A handson guide to managing off-site employees and virtual
teams. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Foster, D. (1992). Bargaining across borders. New York, NY: US,
McGraw-Hill.
Geraldi, J. G., Kutsch, E., & Turner, N. (2011). Towards a
conceptualisation of quality in information technology
projects. International Journal of Project Management, 29,
557–567.
/>Gobeli, D. H., Koenig, H. R., & Bechinger, I. (1998). Managing
conflict in software development teams: A multilevel
analysis. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15,
423–435.
/>Hartono, B., Sulistyo, S. R., Praftiwi, P. P., & Hasmoro, D. (2014).
Project risk: Theoretical concepts and stakeholders’
perspectives. International Journal of Project
Management, 32, 400–411.
/>Henrie, M., & Sousa-Poza, A. (2005). Project management: A
cultural literary review. Project Management Journal, 36,
5–14.

Hirschheim, R., & Newman, M. (1998). Information systems
and user resistance: Theory and practice. Communication
ACM, 31, 398–408.
Hong, K.-K., & Kim, Y.-G. (2002). The critical success factors for
ERP implementation: An organizational fit perspective.
Information & Management, 40, 25–40.

/>ISO. (2009). ISO 31000:2009, risk management—Principles and
guidelines. Geneva: International Standards Organisation.
Jaeger, A. M., & Kanungo, R. N. (1990). Management in
developing countries. New York, NY: Routledge.
Jiang, J. J., Muhanna, W. A., & Klein, G. (2000). User resistance
and strategies for promoting acceptance across system
types. Information & Management, 37, 25–36.
/>Johnson, J. (2006). My life is failure: 100 things you should know to
be a better project leader. Standish Group International: 166.
Joshi, K. (1991). A model of users' perspective on change: The
case of information systems technology implementation.
MIS Quarterly, 15, 229–242.
/>Kappelman, L. A., McKeeman, R., & Zhang, L. (2006). Early
warning signs of it project failure: The dominant dozen.
Information Systems Management, 23, 31–36.
/>060901/95110.4
Karim, S. B. A., Rahman, H. A., Berawi, M. A. &
Jaapar, A. (2007). A review on the issues and strategies of
stakeholder management in the construction industry. In
Meeting and Conference on Management in Construction
and Researchers Association (MICRA), Shah Alam.
Keil, M., Cule, P. E., Lyytinen, K., & Schmidt, R. C. (1998).
A framework for identifying software project risks.
Communications of the ACM, 41, 76–83.
/>Kendra, K., & TapUn, L. J. (2004). Project success: A cultural
framework. Project Management Journal, 35, 30–35.
Kerzner, H. (2009). Project management: A systems approach
to planning, scheduling and controlling. Hoboken, New
Jersey: Wiley & Sons.
Kim, H.-W., & Kankanhalli, A. (2009). Investigating user

resistance to information systems implementation: A
status quo bias perspective. MIS Quarterly, 33, 567–582.
Knotts, R., & Thibodeaux, M. S. (1992). Verbal skills in crossculture managerial communication. European Business
Review, 92, 3–7.
Koster, K. (2010). International project management. (pp.
89–90) London: SAGE Publication.
Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology; methods and
techniques. New Dehli: New Age International (P).
Kutsch, E., & Hall, M. (2005). Intervening conditions on the
management of project risk: Dealing with uncertainty in
information technology projects. International Journal of
Project Management, 23, 591–599.
/>Kwahk, K.-Y., & Kim, H.-W. (2007). Managing readiness in
enterprise systems-driven organizational change.
Behaviour & Information Technology, 27, 79–87.
/>Kwan, T. W., & Leung, H. K. N. (2011). A risk management
methodology for project risk dependencies. IEEE
Transactions on Software Engineering, 37, 635–648.
/>Lapointe, L., & Rivard, S. (2005). A multilevel model of
resistance to information technology implementation.
MIS Quarterly, 29, 461–491.
Lawrence, P. R. (1954). How to deal with resistance to change.
Harvard Business Review, 32, 49–57.
Li, Y., Yang, M.-H., & Chen, H.-G. (2011). The role of team
problem solving competency in information system

Page 12 of 14


Downloaded by [203.128.244.130] at 23:17 14 March 2016

Taherdoost et al., Cogent Business & Management (2016), 3: 1151116
/>
development projects. International Journal of Project
Management, 29, 911–922.
/>Liu, S., & Wang, L. (2014). Understanding the impact of risks
on performance in internal and outsourced information
technology projects: The role of strategic importance.
International Journal of Project Management, 32,
1494–1510.
Long, S., & Spurlock, D. G. (2008). Motivation and stakeholder
acceptance in technology-driven change management:
Implications for the engineering manager. Engineering
Management Journal, 20, 30–36.
Low, P. S., & Leong, C. H. Y. (2000). Cross-cultural project
management for international construction in China.
International Journal of Project Management, 18,
307–316.
Lundy, V., & Morin, P. (2013). Project leadership influences
resistance to change: The case of the Canadian public
service. Project Management Journal, 44, 45–64.
/>Lyytinen, K., & Hirschheim, R. (1987). Information failures—A
survey and classification of the empirical literature (pp.
257–309). Oxford Surveys in Information Technology:
Oxford University Press.
Malek, M. A., & Budhwar, P. (2013). Cultural intelligence as a
predictor of expatriate adjustment and performance in
Malaysia. Journal of World Business, 48, 222–231.
/>Marakas, G. M., & Hornik, S. (1996). Passive resistance
misuse: Over support and covert recalcitrance in IS

implementation. European Journal of Information
Systems, 5, 208–219.
/>Markus, M. L. (1983). Power, politics, and MIS implementation.
Communications of the ACM, 26, 430–444.
/>Martinko, M. J., Henry, J. W., & Zmud, R. W. (1996). An
attributional explanation of individual resistance to
the introduction of information technologies in the
workplace. Behaviour & Information Technology, 15,
313–330.
/>Mead, R. (1998). International management: Cross-cultural
dimensions. Cambridge: Mass, US, Blackwell Business.
Meredith, J. R., & S. J. Mantel (2002). Project management: A
managerial approach. Wiley.
Mueller, R., & Turner, R. (2004). Cultural differences in project
owner-project manager communications. Innovations
Project Management Research.
Müller, R., & Turner, J. R. (2004). Cultural differences in project
owner–project manager communications. Newtown
Square: Project Management Institute.
Muriithi, N., & Crawford, L. (2003). Approaches to project
management in Africa: Implications for international
development projects. International Journal of Project
Management, 21, 309–319.
/>Murray, J. P. (2000). Reducing IT project complexity.
Information Strategy. The Executive’s Journal, 16, 30.
Ocepek, U., Bosnić, Z., Šerbec, I. N., & Rugelj, J. (2013). Exploring
the relation between learning style models and preferred
multimedia types. Computers & Education, 69, 343–355.
/>Osipova, E., & Eriksson, P. E. (2013). Balancing control and
flexibility in joint risk management: Lessons learned from

two construction projects. International Journal of Project
Management, 31, 391–399.
/>Pan, E., & Zbang, Z. (2004). Crosscultural challenges when
doing business in China. Singapore Management Review,
26, 81–90.

Pardo del Val, M., & Martínez Fuentes, C. (2003). Resistance
to change: A literature review and empirical study.
Management Decision, 41, 148–155.
/>Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1988). Critical success factors across the
project life cycle. Project Management Journal, 19, 67–75.
Rahman, A. A., Haron, A., Sahibuddin, S., & Harun, M. (2014).
An empirical study of the software project requirements
engineering practice in Malaysia public sector—A
perspective from the stakeholders’ challenges. International
Journal of Computer Theory and Engineering, 6.
Ramli, A., Mokhtar, M., & Aziz, B. A. (2014). The development
of an initial framework for multi-firm industrial safety
management based on cooperative relationship: A
Malaysia case study. International Journal of Disaster Risk
Reduction, 10, 349–361.
Ropponen, J., & Lyytinen, K. (2000). Components of software
development risk: How to address them? A project
manager survey. IEEE Transactions on Software
Engineering, 26.
Rumelt, R. P. (1995). Inertia and transformation. In
C. A. Montgomery (Ed.), Resources in an evolutionary
perspective: Towards a synthesis of evolutionary and
resource-based approaches to strategy. Norwell, MA:
Kluwer Academic.

Schmidt, R., Lyytinen, K., Keil, M., & Cule, P. (2001). Identifying
software project risks: An international Delphi study.
Journal of Management Information System, 17, 5–36.
Schneider, S. C., & De Meyer, A. (1991). Interpreting and
responding to strategic issues: The impact of national
culture. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 307–320.
/>Shore, B., & Cross, B. J. (2005). Exploring the role of national
culture in the management of large-scale international
science projects. International Journal of Project
Management, 23, 55–64.
/>Singh, P. (2010). Encouraging intercultural communication
using an action research approach. Systemic Practice and
Action Research, 23, 341–352.
/>Sriussadaporn, R. (2006). Managing international business
communication problems at work: A pilot study in foreign
companies in Thailand. Cross Cultural Management: An
International Journal, 13, 330–344.
/>Tah, J. H. M., & Carr, V. (2001). Knowledge-based approach
to construction project risk management. Journal of
Computing in Civil Engineering, 15, 170–177.
/>(ASCE)0887-3801(2001)15:3(170)
Taherdoost, H., & Keshavarzsaleh, A. (2015a). Managing successful
IT project; marketing perspective. 12th International
Conference on E-ACTIVITIES, Seoul, South Korea.
Taherdoost, H., & Keshavarzsaleh, A. (2015b). What extent
lesson learned can help project mangers under probability
of success or failure circumstances? 3rd International
Conference on Computer Supported Education (COSUE
‘15), Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA.
Tiwana, A., & Keil, M. (2004). The one-minute risk assessment

tool. Communications of the ACM, 47, 73–77.
/>Vaupel, R., & Schmoike, G. (2000). Customer-focused
management by projects. Houndmills: Macmillan .
Verma, V. K. (1995). Organizing projects for success. Upper
Darby: Project Management Institute.
Vrhovec, S., & Rupnik, R. (2011). A model for resistance
management in IT projects and programs. Electrotech
Review, 78, 73–78.
Vrhovec, S. L. R., Hovelja, T., Vavpotič, D., & Krisper, M. (2015).
Diagnosing organizational risks in software projects:

Page 13 of 14


Taherdoost et al., Cogent Business & Management (2016), 3: 1151116
/>
Downloaded by [203.128.244.130] at 23:17 14 March 2016

Stakeholder resistance. International Journal of Project
Management, 33, 1262–1273.
/>Wagner, R. (2013). Projects and project management in
Malaysia. Malaysia: International Project Management
Association, IPMA.
Wallace, L., & Keil, M. (2004). Software project risks and their
effect on outcomes. Communications of the ACM, 47,
68–73. />Wang, X., & Liu, L. (2007). Cultural barriers to the use of
Western project management in Chinese enterprises:

Some empirical evidence from Yunnan province. Project
Management Journal, 38, 61–73.

/>Xue, X., Shen, Q., & Ren, Z. (2010). Critical review of
collaborative working in construction projects:
Business Environment and human behaviors. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 26, 196–208. .
org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000025
Yi, W., & Chan, A. (2013). Critical review of labor productivity
research in construction journals. Journal of Management
in Engineering, 30, 214–225.

© 2016 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.

Page 14 of 14